CreateDebate


Debate Info

12
24
Pro Price Increase Con Price Increase
Debate Score:36
Arguments:20
Total Votes:38
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Pro Price Increase (7)
 
 Con Price Increase (12)

Debate Creator

Mosqueda(5) pic



Martin Shkreli

***THIS IS FOR A SCHOOL DEBATE*** All are welcome to enter.  Think critical, keep it smart and you are welcome!

Martin Shkreli was the CEO of Turning Pharmaceuticals.  His company purchased a drug that cures Aids patients of a specific kind of infection.  Mr. Shkreli raised the cost of the drug from $18 to $750 per pill over night.  Do you believe this was an ethical business practice.  Review attached interview and research on your own. 

Each team will post their position statement.  Your first statement should have three points, make sure they are sourced.  You can attach video or media.

Clarifying questions can be asked.

Closing statements: Explain why the opposition is wrong and your team is right.  No new arguments can be brought in at this point.

Good luck!



Pro Price Increase

Side Score: 12
VS.

Con Price Increase

Side Score: 24
2 points

Why did Martin Shkreli do the right things by raising the price because it gives him funds to do research on the pill to improve it or make it a cure with the right doctors and pay them right will be more focus on improving the pill. not a lot of people have this disease so many will not have to buy it. Also insurance will pay most of it.

Side: Pro Price Increase
rure2995(2) Disputed
2 points

Yes, the price increase may bring more funds to his research, but why did he increase it so sudden. The money was still going to be coming in either way, I believe he's in it for the money and not for the health of people. Yes, he may be giving more than 60% free to the public, but haven't you thought that maybe he is doing that to look like good guy, or not to pay taxes? Meanwhile, he is making money more than enough from the insurance companies who buy most of his product.

Side: Con Price Increase
Fabiola98(2) Disputed
1 point

If the pill has been around for about 62 years, do you think it can still be improved? What if the person does not have insurance? Can people expect a better and improved pill for paying so much money? or are they just taking advantage of the people that really need that pill?

Side: Con Price Increase
godi3271(2) Disputed
1 point

The pill has been there that long and hasn't really improved because it doesn't have enough money to do research so by increasing the price it would allow more doctors to get into the research and develop something much better. Martin Shreli state that he would give the pill for free if they where approved. Most of the bill the insurance would pay for it so you are not going to waste all the 700 dollars we will only pay a percentage of it.

Side: Pro Price Increase
Yaraset(3) Disputed
1 point

What about the people with no health insurance? They will have to pay the $750/pill? What if his research never progresses? Where will all the money go? Why did he decide to change the price so much over night. Was there not any other way to get funds for his research?

Side: Con Price Increase
2 points

I believe Martin Shkreli's price increase on the Daraprim is an ethical business practice because it is said the drug is rarely used that the impact on the health system is minuscule and the money will be used to develop better treatments with fewer side effects. It is also clear that many patients use the Daraprim for far less than a year, and that now the price is more in line with those of other drugs for rare diseases. Shkreli stated, " this isn't the greedy drug company trying to gouge patients, it is us trying to stay in business and improve it". Almost all people with a business will agree this statement and do the same.

Side: Pro Price Increase

Insofar that aids is primarily a self inflicted condition it is reasonable that those who have contracted the disease should be made pay a heavy price for their own recklessness and in turn encourage others to take responsibility for their own lives by employing the precautionary measures, such as the use of condoms, which will greatly reduce the chances of becoming infected and spreading the disease. Furthermore, Martin Shkreli is a businessman whose prime function is to make a profit, as great a profit as is possible whilst staying within the law. When I was in business I told my sales people, 'don't be shy, ask for plenty''. When a businessman identifies a market he/she should exploit it for all it's worth while they can as the product you have may, and almost certainly will, be superseded by a competitive article.

Side: Pro Price Increase
Mosqueda(5) Clarified
1 point

1. Would you say then, it is ethical or reasonable to raise prices on other conditions contracted through behavior that is considered risky? Activities such as cliff-diving, horseback riding, skiing or riding a motorcycle without a helmet that resulted in paralysis or a devastating head injury that could have been prevented.

2. In the fact that the drug rose 5000% over night, should a moral component been taken into consideration? Was it legal, yes it was…was it ethical that is the question. Could a tiered increase been taken into consideration? Was there a new drug feasibility study conducted to see if an improvement could have even been made, and the timeline mapped?

Side: Pro Price Increase
Yaraset(3) Disputed
1 point

I would say his actions are unethical and it is not reasonable to raise prices so high in such short time. This research that he need funds for is not known how long it will take. People that need this drug shouldn't be charged so much for it over night.

I think Mr. Shkreli should have considered raising the price in a slower matter. He could have raised the price slowly.

Side: Con Price Increase
2 points

Brianna Ayon

In law you can be sued if you do not maximize prices. Martin has found a way to make a better and safer drug by improving investments. Daraprim was developed in 1953 as a treatment for toxoplasmosis an infection caused by a parasite. It comes from eating under-cooked meat or drinking contaminated water, and affects those with compromised immune systems, like AIDS. This is a disease where there hasn't been one pharmaceutical company focused on it for 70 years. We're now martin Shkreli Company that is dedicated to the treatment and cure of toxoplasmosis. And with these new profits can be spend all of that upside on these patients who sorely need a new upgraded drug. If there is no research on this drug no advance of medication is made. Kalobios has emerged from bankruptcy so martin has plans for this rare disease providing reasonable return. It is very expensive to develop and test new medications. A large portion of the consumer price for a drug is based on this and not the actual manufacturing costs. The drug companies need to be able to recoup these development costs and to make a profit that the companies will be able to use for future drug development. Shkreli said: “We need to turn a profit on the drug.” He defended the decision by Bloomberg News that newer versions of the drug needed to be developed and his was the first company “to really focus on this product” for decades and that such research was extremely expensive. He also promised if you cannot afford the drug he will give it away for free. Mostly all patients are covered by the insurances. How much does insurance companies make? A huge profit. What affects does it make on insurance companies? When 60% sells for 1 dollar. I believe this is an ecosystem that happens through all businesses in order to achieve goals. His goal is to be a profitable company by researching new ways to develop better pills to decrease unusual deaths and less side effects. He is only doing what every business is encouraged to do which is find new and better ways to keep succeeding. Put yourself in his shoes would you buy an unprofitable, bankrupt company? He is willing to take risks to save the company and provide what these patients need. His ethical decision will not only help patients but everyone involved in the ecosystem.

Side: Pro Price Increase
2 points

I don’t get what the cockiness have to do with him try to help the patient and running his business what happens if that’s the way he talks. All his trying to do is prove the doctors that they need a pill to help the patient get cure and not hear every year that so many people have died because of the disease or any pills they take. Martin Shkreli all his trying to do is improve the pills and help other not get the disease and die. The think hear that nobody is getting is that if you have a disease and need a pill to help you, these is a cure that will let you spend money only once and it’s not going to be like any other pills that every monthly or so you will keep paying for the pills. His also try to help other that if you don’t have insurance, or your insurance can pay for the drug he will let you get the drug for a $1 or free. But what I don’t get is if a bigger company raise their prize for any drugs higher there is no argument there but when Martin Shkreli raise the prize from $13.50 to $750 everybody is going crazy and getting mad for what he did.

Side: Pro Price Increase
gobr9545(2) Disputed
2 points

He's personality happens to take effect in many situations, starting off with... if people consider him to be cocky and arrogant many people will not be his clients nor work with him. The attitude of a person, especially in specific his makes people think his main purpose is to gain money. With an attitude like his, not only is he looking awfully bad but instead of gaining money he is probably now losing money.

Also, it isn't 100% guaranteed to be curable. Therefor people will probably be mad at the fact since they paid so much money for a pill that not to long ago was only $13, and now its $750. If he had done the process of increasing the price little by little it wouldn't have been so dramatic, but since he did it over night it sounds ridiculous.

Side: Con Price Increase
1 point

All what Mr. Shkreli is doing is a good cause by making this medicine more effective for patients who have Toxoplasmosis. Daraprim is a medicine that helps cure this type of infection but is so cheap that the medication is not effective. People are dying regarding to this medication that does not work. He is trying to improve the medication but for that he needs to rise the cost for the cost of the research. People pay more money for other types of medicines why not this one that can actually cure aids. It may seen expensive for the low income people but they don't need to worry because if they can afford they get it for free.

Side: Pro Price Increase
3 points

Mr. Shkreli happens to be a very cocky guy, which is why people tend to dislike him even more after the insane upgrade price on the pill. Why did he make such a decision over night? Yes his business is small, as he says, but why increase the price so much when he sells the rest of his medicine for $0.01 or a dollar? Why does he give out some medicine free? He claims that there is other medicines triple the price, yet are all those drugs 100% curable? What is the point in paying so much if there is no cure.

Side: Con Price Increase
3 points

I agree to the issue is that Pharmaceutical company would rather cause millions of deaths in order to raise a profit… “They” are willing and effectively causing many deaths, possible bankruptcy, and financial annihilation to those already financially unstable due to their medical condition.

If it was a time frame issue due to the increase in the price of the “Daraprim” then I’d understand due to the economy change. Despite, Americans today have access to more and better drugs. Some might say that that the greater chance of apprehending these drugs and medication for the cheapest price is not from the doctor. Prescription Medication has been bought illegally from pharmacy’s without prescriptions and off the street from individual civilians as ourselves in our home towns.

The number of prescriptions filled in the United States ….

Increased from 2.0 billion in 1994 - 2.5 billion in 1998

Overtime it was projected to reach ….2.9 billion in 2000

For that reason, with an at least 5 year time frame maybe 10 Years, but acceptable for 5 years with no more than 75 % increase.

Unacceptable to my standards of an increase in 5,000% increase in a short period of time.

• With this case scenario points out possibility of many individuals who at one point in time took medication prescribed to treat a serious medical condition increased the chance of this individual treating and beating their battle alongside picking up an addiction to the use of medication for a non-medical reason.

• A percentage of Low income families struggle through debt and bankruptcy due to the high cost of medical prescriptions to care for their love one.

• Some die to due they can afford the medication and chose that they would rather accept the shortage on their life then spend 2x’s the amount it cost of rent or utilities

Overall ……

I fully stand by my opinion on this debate that this situation is Unethical.

Side: Con Price Increase
3 points

First of all right when I began to watch this interview, I had a really bad first impression of Martin Shkreli. He is a very cocky and arrogant. I am completely against his decision he took over night of raising the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750. Daraprim is a medication that is used to treat serious parasite infections of the body, brain, and eye or to prevent toxoplasmosis infection in people with HIV infection. Yes, it is said that this medication is not used so often, but, it is a great medication to those few thousands of people who do need of it. Raising the price to it will obviously not make their treatments easier at all.

This man only shows ignorance and arrogance. He is only caring about the money he will be making. He argues that this will help his company to work on making a better drug in the future, but what about the people that need this drug now and cannot afford the money this drug costs.

He could have considered making the change in price slowly. By raising a few dollars by month or yearly.

Side: Con Price Increase
2 points

It is not right what he did overnight. The drug has been around for 62 years now, Would he be able to improve the drug formula? Is there any chance of him lowering the price after the formula is improved? Why didn't he raise the price little by little instead of all at once? These are all questions that have not yet been answered. I believe that the price of the pill is way too high, when it comes to somebody that can't afford it.

Side: Con Price Increase
2 points

I disagree with what Martin Skreli did overnight. Increase the pill from $13.50 to $750 per tablet. I understand he says he uses the money gained to do more research and make the drug better and more effective. Although, this may or not be true, which can be debated because of his way he expresses him self with the situation, the drug did not have to go that high in price overnight. Yes, maybe he makes more money that way, but if he says he gives more then 60% of it free, why not increase the price more and more over time and not all at once? What difference was is going to make.

Side: Con Price Increase
1 point

Martin Shkreli is a criminal. He has a predatory criminal mind, and so he thinks like a criminal, and has been criminally charged. Him being in the pharmaceutical business is analogous to Hitler being in the nursing profession.

Side: Con Price Increase
0 points

Its my my believe people should afford this medication regardless if they have a insurance or not. If the actually company will believe it needed an increase they should already make the adjustment long time ago. This not a guarantee that his noble intentions are going to work. This process takes time and yes! money but this is an exaggeration that I not will not trust my money for it.

Side: Con Price Increase